About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
CSPAN2 2
CSPAN 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
of state, they don't get into domestic politics. but when there's an extra nation on foreign policy to the american people, they do go on news shows. i used to go on news shows. susan rice has been on other news shows besides those five. they are the chief foreign policy spokesman for theed a handwriting. to suggest not to go on news shows because that's political is just not part of precedent and it's wrong. i think senator collins is -- i know her. i think she's trying to do the best job she can. but to say not to go on those news shows, that doesn't really jive. >> let me ask you one other thing, governor, about senator collins. she wants susan rice to explain her role in the bombings in africa, tanzania and kenya in 1998. you were the ambassador in 1998. did susan rice have any oversight or any authority at all that dealt with those embassies in kenya and tanzania that she would have to explain? >> no. she is not a homeland security officer. at the time, she was assistant secretary of africa on policy. she was making policy towards sudan, towards kenya, towards south africa. an
, we will fail to learn. if we don't change our strategy from a foreign policy point of view, bob, change this light footprint approach on the war on terror. there will be more benghazis. >> schieffer: thank you very much. and bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. you know, one job or the other. the moment i could access the retirement plan, i just became firm about it -- you know, it's like it just hits you fast. you know, you start thinking about what's really important here. ♪ >> schieffer: scrounge me the two chairs of congress' oversight committees, dianne feinstein, and. mike rogers who joins me from miami. you heard what lindsey graham said. he said this is getting to be more than what susan rice gave us an explanation. he said we're talking about a complete breakdown in the intelligence, in security, in everything concerning that benghazi mission. what's your take on that? >> well, i have reviewed all of the thre
we sort of to set politics and issues aside. she bring as 21st century approach to foreign policy. one that is in step with president obama. she also has a great deal of passion for human rights and human dignity. what john kerry has passion for nobody is really sure. he is kind of a vanilla buy. she understands issues of poverty and pandemic and how though pray into national security and foreign policy. jon: on the other hand, senator mccain says, john kerry came within a whisker of being president of the united states, angela. senator mccain went on to say this, i would love to hear him make necessary case. i don't have anything in thinks background like the tragedy in gaziano that would make me carefully examine the situation. >> it is doing susan rice. if kerry is the nominee he would have smooth sailing through. in washington these are friends behind the scenes. if susan rice is nominee we'll have partisan politics. we have the liberal mainstream media already bashing republicans, some calling them racists and sexist in the fact they won't support susan rise because the fact
that on foreign policy. >> look, i think what we've learned is that he is a chicago machine politician who happens to have radical values. he is seeking to run the united states the same way the chicago machine would run chicago. i think the challenge for house republicans is, to design a strategy from the base of strength they have, and to be able to say we are not going to go along with this president taking over the whole country in a centralized model where he will have no accountability. they can borrow endless money the geithner proposal, no accountability to anybody. >> sean: mr. speaker appreciate it. great new book. next, bob woodward takes us inside the fiscal cliff negotiating room. he wrote about the grand bargain that didn't happen. congressman louie gohmert is here. you will be surprised what he has to say. it is the story that is now swept the nation a police officer buying a barefoot homeless man a pair of shoes. the woman who captured that video will tell us what the camera didn't. she will join us tonight on hannity. r streaming quotes, any way you want. fully customize it for yo
because of a foreign policy decision. the wars weren't going to be fought. you aren't really saving money. it's a budget gimmick but it's not money you were going to spend. >> no, it's not a budget gimmick. the republicans propose it as a budget gimmick? >> sure, absolutely. >> then you should address it to them. >> but i'm addressing it to you. >> it's a basic challenge we face. this is the challenge we face which is how to bring the deficits down over time. it will require spending, savings and increase in rates and revenues. we think we can do that. we will work hard to do that and we have a good chance do it. no reason we can't do it. >> last question. can you promise we will not go over the cliff? >> no, i can't promise that. that's a decision that lies in the hands of the republicans that are now opposing increases in tax rates. if they recognize reality that we can't afford to extend those tax rates, then we have the basis for an agreement to be very good for the american people. >> and the president bears no responsibility, it's all up to the republicans? >> chris, and yourself th
are no ending the wars for budget purposes but because of the foreign policy decision, the wars were not going to be fought and you are not really saving money, it is a budget gimmick, money -- >> no, it is not, when republicans propose it is a budget gimmick. >> chris: sure, absolutely. >> address it with them. >> chris: well, i'm addressing it with you. >> again, it is a basic challenge we face, chris, the challenge we face, which is how to bring the deficit down over time, now, it will require spending savings, it will require increasing in rates of revenues and we think we can do it and will work hard to do it and have a good chance to do it and no reason we can't. >> chris: last question, can you promise that we will not go over the cliff. >> no, i can't promise that. that is a decision that lies in the hands of the republicans, that are now opposing increases in tax rates, if they recognize the reality, that we cannot afford to extend the tax rates we have the basis for an agreement that would be good for the american people. >> chris: and the president bears no responsibility, it is all
for international peace. we believe that our global economic interests and our foreign policy values are closely tied together. they should be closely tied together. and that's why we urge our colleagues to seize this opportunity that russia's succession to the world trade organization presents for both job creation and our ability to bind russia to a rule-based system of trade and dispute resolution. granting russia permanent normal trade relations is as much in our interest as it is in theirs. frankly, that's what ought to guide the choices that we make in the senate. the up side of this policy is clear on an international landscape. it is one that really offers this kind of what i would call, frankly, a kind of one-sided trade deal, one that promises billions of dollars in new u.s. exports and thousands of new jobs in america that is certainly in our interest. russia is today the world's seventh-largest economy. having officially joined the w.t.o. on august 22, russia is now required by its membership in the w.t.o. to lower tariffs and to open up to new imports. that sudden jump in market acc
.s. troops on the ground. they wanted minimal arms to defend themselves and we outsourced our foreign policy to fundamentalist regimes and they supported the fundamentalists. there is one other issue. the nato air defense patriot batteries going to turkey to defend turkish air space and send a message to assad. that an inside baseball nato issue. and i wouldn't confuse that with giving arms to the syrian rebels. megyn: is there any way of establishing a safe haven any want the viewers to know syria seems so far away it seems like there is a bad guy running it and folks trying to exploit the situation. but the reports are some of these assad forces were going door to door, lining up entire families, shooting little kids in the head in front of their parent and shooting the parent in front of the children. lining them up one by one and watching them kill the families right in front of them. it's so gruesome and vial. is there anything we can do in terms of establishing a safe haven or something for people to get to? >> certainly there are de facto safe havens across the turkish and jordanian f
that so unsecured when the british left and everyone else. if we don't change our strategy from a foreign policy, change this lightfoot print approach to the war on terror there will be more benghazis. martha: what about that morning. i'm joined by kt macfarland. kt, it's so interesting. you watch these shows and you hear benghazi brought up. so often the reacross is get over it. move on. move on. why should we not move on? >> because that wham we did in 1998 when there were twin bombings in u.s. embassies in east africa and in 2000 when there was an attack against the u.s.s. cole in the region. what are we doing now? fast forward a decade. we have had attacks on american soil at consulate and americans had died. what are we doing? we are arguing with ourselves. we know where those died training camps are in eastern libya. why not go after them. what is the lesson al qaeda takes from this? once again no consequences. the americans will be fighting each other, not us. i think we allow them to become emboldened, and this is a green light for continuing to attack americans. martha: what do y
cuba has been essentially stagnant. the core element of our policy, our foreign policy, which is the embargo, has authorized in a proclamation signed by president kennedy on february 3, 1962. that's 51 years ago. at that time, president kennedy justified the embargo by citing the -- quote -- "subversive, offensive of sino-soviet communism with which the government of cuba is publicly aligned." end quote. he also stated his willingness to -- quote -- "take all action necessary to promote national and hemispheric security by isolating the present government of cuba and thereby reducing the threat posed by its alignment with these communist powers." it's an understatement to say that president kennedy's rationale is from a different era. the cold war is over. the, quote -- "subversive offensive of sino-soviet communism has been turned back, and what remains of the communist powers that he was referring to are now our major trading partners. we have now extended permanent normal trade relations to russia. this was, of course, the principal communist power to which president kenn
. that is the bipartisan tradition we need more of in washington, especially on foreign policy. as you prepare to leave the senate you love, i think i speak on behalf of everybody here and millions of people across the country when i say your legacy will endure in a safer and more secure world and a safer and more secure america. we pray this nation produces more leaders with your sense of decency and stability and integrity. we are grateful to you. thank you very much. [applause] i will point out it was the coup took me on my first foreign trip as a senator to russia, ukraine, and we were there to see the cooperative production program in action. the first thing i learned is when dick travels overseas, it is not a duncan. -- junkin. we did not stop and look at beautiful sights and lounge around. he wore out every 25-year-old staffoer. what you also learn is dick -- the more remote a place is, the more obscure the facility is, the bigger a rock star dick is. [laughter] they love him. i remember walking through one facility. i leaned in for a closer look. they said, do not touch that orange stuff. at an
. what can our current president of the united states learn from churchhill's foreign policy? >> one thing churchhill would not believe in leading from behind. he believed in telling the facts and then rallying the people around the facts. >> steve: yeah. >> and what he can learn in this book, not only his many prophecies was proved to be true. but that the way he arrived at these predictions. that process is a premer for presidential leadership. >> steve: you think that it a big mistake for president obama in his first term to return that famous bust of churchhill to the british and took it out of the white house. >> well he did it, yes. when it went there the night before. yes, he was awful rejecting the wisdom of churchhill he could listen to churchhill he would say the important thing is not to be popular, but to be respected. and churchhill did that. he told the people the truth. that's the reason he was a great prophet not only did he know history but he had the courage to deliver the unvarnished facts unlike spineless politician or burrcrats. >> steve: maybe the president coul
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)